These trout from what I have read were a strain that was develpoed in a particular hatchery and were stocked.They have now reproduced in the wild and comprimise about 50 % of the wild browns that are in Italy. I have found this from several sources.

Mountainbrookie wrote:So because it doesn't look like a trout in a painting it's not real?

Explain the trout in the video then. How did they 'enhance' that one?

My point was that Prosek's book and painting confirm the existence of these Italian brown trout with very prominent red spotting. I still believe the spotting in the photos looks enhanced. Didn't watch the video. Maybe I will over the weekend.

Posted on: 2013/4/12 9:06

_________________
"You might be a big fish, in a little pond. Doesn't mean you've won, cause a long may come, a bigger one."

I've looked at the photo's on flicker in their original size and I still don't believe they're enhanced. It's all about the lighting. Here's a pic of a wild brown from PA that has not been edited in any way, taken with a run of the mill point and shoot camera. Note the red spots where the shadow is created by my arm, they almost glow. If you had more and larger red spots on this fish it would look exactly the same as those in the original post. The lighting makes all of the difference in the world.

As someone who uses photoshop for a living, the red spots are indeed very vivid (as we all agree), but the pictures themselves are further enhanced. You wouldn't just select an entire photo and ramp up a color saturation, that would make things look alien. You select the areas you want to pop (it takes 10 seconds?) and the play with one or two settings for a rudimentary effect.

I did this by hand in less than a minute (hence the rough edges). In reality, you don't even need to select an area with photoshop - just choose which color you like and then change the saturation/hue of all like colors in the image. I just selected an area to give you an idea of how it can work.